Text Size

Video

POLITICO 44

But just because something is nearly impossible doesn’t mean you can’t find a politician willing to promise it.

Sick and tired of hordes of pregnant illegal immigrants sneaking into our country so they can have babies who automatically become American citizens under the 14th Amendment?

Well, let’s change the 14th Amendment by passing a new amendment! Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said on Fox News a couple of weeks ago: “I may introduce a constitutional amendment that changes the rules if you have a child here. Birthright citizenship, I think, is a mistake; ... we should change our Constitution and say if you come here illegally and you have a child, that child’s automatically not a citizen.”

Asked if he was really serious about introducing an amendment, Graham said, “I got to.”

Given the Postal Service’s new priority mail flat-rate boxes, it might be physically easier to ship babies back to their mother’s country of origin, but passing a new amendment is very, very difficult.

Since the Constitution took effect in 1789, there have been more than 11,000 attempts to amend it. But you know how many have been ratified in those 221 years? Just 27, and that includes the Bill of Rights, the first 10.

True, the last one, the 27th Amendment, dealing with congressional pay raises, was finally ratified in 1992. But it was first proposed in 1789.

So if you’ve got a pet peeve and a couple of hundred years or so to wait, a constitutional amendment is definitely the way to go.

For politicians, supporting a constitutional amendment is often a way of getting loonies off their backs. So it was with the flag-burning amendment, better known as the solution without a problem.

While they admitted that people weren’t actually going around burning flags anymore, lawmakers wanted them to stop doing it anyway. At least in election years. And because the Supreme Court has ruled that burning the flag is a form of free speech, lawmakers have sought, year after year, to pass an amendment to ban flag desecration so they can go back home and tell voters that they have made America safe for flags.

The 14th should apply to persons here legally. Illegals belong to the legal system of another country. And don't children travel under the parents' passport, if the parents have one? How can the issue of illegals be legal?

Illegals were likely not mentioned in the original 14th debate, even if immigrants were discussed. ("persons" in the original 14th acknowledged that blacks had been freed and were no longer property.)

So the 14th - or any legislation or amendment - should not be used as an excuse/ruse to incorporate these persons - the children - into our system.

The 14th should apply to persons here legally. Illegals belong to the legal system of another country. And don't children travel under the parents' passport, if the parents have one? How can the issue of illegals be legal?

I tend to agree except for one point - the Left denies the concept of illegality. They have deleted the word from their vocabulary . It's as though it does not exist for these mindless 'citizens of the world'. Look at the semantic games they play to avoid calling it what it is.

Besides, they have made illegals a political constituentcy - another group that they hope to corrupt and make dependent upon the state. There's politcal power in that, you know. That their real motivation. To the progressive weasels, corrupting the nation is a small price to pay for it.

Let me see... Socialized medicine...? Federally owned car companies...? Impossible...? An administration that is governing against the will of the people...? Impossible...?

There are impossible good things and impossible bad things. Unwinding all the damage that this administration has done will be nearly impossible. Does that mean we shouldn't try? Progressives took 100 years to accomplish what most Americans would have considered impossible.

Conservatives will take 100 years to get our democratic republic back from them, if that is what it takes!

I tend to agree except for one point - the Left denies the concept of illegality. They have deleted the word from their vocabulary . It's as though it does not exist for these mindless 'citizens of the world'. Look at the semantic games they play to avoid calling it what it is.

Besides, they have made illegals a political constituentcy - another group that they hope to corrupt and make dependent upon the state. There's politcal power in that, you know. That their real motivation. To the progressive weasels, corrupting the nation is a small price to pay for it.

Smart white libs know one thing about themselves. White liberals don't breed. Co-opting a race of dependents who breed gives them a logistical advantage as far as the ballot box is concerned. That's why so many of them become teachers and professors or work in soem other aspect of education. Liberals are too self centered to have children of their own so some figure they'll braiwash yours for a living. All the bleeding heart pinkos who come in here crying "racist" and "Nazi" are white children of privelige who live in 99% white communities, far removed from the problems illegals bring with them to America.

Amazingly enough, not one politician has been able to point to *any* empirical evidence that that there is a statistically significant amount of illeagal women coming here to have anchor babies. Can someone point out exactly how many anchor babies were born last year? Or 5 years ago, or 10 years ago? Thanks.

Oh and since we are amending the 14th amendment, could we make sure that it specifies that only humans (i.e. not corporations) are citizens and therefore are the only ones who can have rights (such as the 1st Amendment).

It is pretty funny that the "party of Lincoln" is trying to do away one their signature contributions to the Constitution....but then the Republicans stopped being the party of Lincoln a long time ago.

White liberals don't breed ? How repugnant. Only animals breed. People procreate. You show your bias to the world with the words you use. But don't let me stop you . Keep up the crazy talk . Keep up the divisive politics in your own party. Alienate ( now that's funny-get it ALIENate) the very voters you need to win any big election again. Go sit in a corner with your wonderful candidates . Paul , Angle , Palin (future) , Newt , and Buck lets see how they do. The only solution to illegal immigration is to hit the employers hard. But that's not in your playbook is it ? You only go after the powerless. Lets see in 5 years how this has worked for you as a party. Don't let fear rule your life.

Amazingly enough, not one politician has been able to point to *any* empirical evidence that that there is a statistically significant amount of illeagal women coming here to have anchor babies. Can someone point out exactly how many anchor babies were born last year? Or 5 years ago, or 10 years ago? Thanks.

Cause it'd be so easy to nail down the statistics on that one wouldn't it? After all women just check the box on the hospital forms that say "anchor baby".

Isepick: Aug. 11, 2010 - 6:42 AM EST

It is pretty funny that the "party of Lincoln" is trying to do away one their signature contributions to the Constitution....but then the Republicans stopped being the party of Lincoln a long time ago.

White liberals don't breed ? How repugnant. Only animals breed. People procreate. You show your bias to the world with the words you use. But don't let me stop you . Keep up the crazy talk . Keep up the divisive politics in your own party. Alienate ( now that's funny-get it ALIENate) the very voters you need to win any big election again. Go sit in a corner with your wonderful candidates . Paul , Angle , Palin (future) , Newt , and Buck lets see how they do. The only solution to illegal immigration is to hit the employers hard. But that's not in your playbook is it ? You only go after the powerless. Lets see in 5 years how this has worked for you as a party. Don't let fear rule your life.

White liberals tend not to breed. We "repugnant" conservatives do. I've got 3. How many do you have? They track stuff like this you know.

They only solution is to hit the empoyers hard? Will you please think? You and the amnesty crowd are the ones harming the "powerless". By failing to crack down hard on the whole thing you are propping up the corrupt governments of Mexico and other Latin American countries. These governments send their poor people to America and get billions back in return. You are the ones helping to prevent any real economic reform to take place in these nations that might really help the "powerless". It's not about what works for my party. This isn't working for my country (or theirs). More then ever it's time to take care of us not millions of foreigners. Wise up and stop trying to placate your own ego by declaring your self the noble crusader for the poor fighting big meanies like me.

Then there is no proof that this happening in large enough numbers for anyone to be worried about. Just hype and Fox fear-mongering.

Oh yeah, it's not happening at all. In fact Hannity and Beck just made it up. People who work in hospitals never see this sort of thing and aren't going bankrupt treating illegals for free. It's all part of a conspiracy to get brown people.

Isepick: Aug. 11, 2010 - 7:18 AM EST

Dread-neck: Aug. 11, 2010 - 6:56 AM EST

Do you honestly think Abraham Lincoln would have put up with this crap?

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

So, the operative line is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

Kids born to Foreign Dimplomats stationed in the U.S. don't become U.S. Citizens. There are laws regarding that. Babies born to people vacationing in the U.S. are generally not granted Citizenship. Etc.

So, what was actually meant when the framers included "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"?

That is an area that should be challenged through the courts. It may provide the relief, without the need for a Constitutional Amendment.

Every couple or few weeks someone writes how the GOP should cut the anti-Hispanic rhetoric. The GOP never listens, and in fact does the opposite, with "moderates" ratcheting up the rhetoric. Now we have people like John McCain -- co-author the Kennedy-McCain comprehensive immigration reform bill -- talking about "anchor babies" and Lindsey Graham talking about Hispanic women "dropping" babies.

The Republicans are committed to playing the short game with these divisive racialized politics, and they will one day have to live with the results. But certainly nothing anyone can write will change their course.

Every couple or few weeks someone writes how the GOP should cut the anti-Hispanic rhetoric. The GOP never listens, and in fact does the opposite, with "moderates" ratcheting up the rhetoric. Now we have people like John McCain -- co-author the Kennedy-McCain comprehensive immigration reform bill -- talking about "anchor babies" and Lindsey Graham talking about Hispanic women "dropping" babies.

The Republicans are committed to playing the short game with these divisive racialized politics, and they will one day have to live with the results. But certainly nothing anyone can write will change their course.